Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwolla

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is surprisingly deep disagreement about whether the sources are promotional/superficial or sufficient for an article.  Sandstein  21:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwolla

[edit]
Dwolla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From Detail talk page discussions, References like Wall street coverage and Fast Company clearly shows nothing about this company. It is definitely made by someone close to this company to mere promotions and nothing else. Another fintech with no encyclopedia notability. Popular media did not cover this as being notable. this is just Press nothing about depth of coverage. Highly misleading in nature. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This one I scratch my head on as the nominator says there is detailed talk page discussions. If you look, there are references laid out there by other parties. My search found more references than I could possibly use for the page. Here is one from Fortune that is about as in-depth as you can get to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. As far as promotional tone or COI, it can be cleaned up without deleting the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- strictly promotional and has been tagged as such since 2014. Wikipedia is not a platform for companies' promotional messaged. The Fortune article referenced above does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, including copy such as:
  • The payment network Dwolla has launched “the most important partnership we’ve had to date.” That’s how founder and CEO Ben Milne describes his company’s new deal with BBVA Compass, a subsidiary of BBVA Group.
If the promo tone is addressed through copy editing, there would be not much left. Yes, the company exists, but Wikipedia is not a a catalog of unremarkable tech companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article itself is not only a blatant advertisement but everything from the sources are advertising, including literal company quotes and self-supplied information such as what it is, its services, how it can be used and other company-focused specifics, and the history itself shows the expected several coming-and-going accounts, take "Caitlindwolla" for example who was clearly an employee, and then the apparent company-based IPs....therefore there is nothing, especially not PR sources, that would amount to sufficient convincing for us to become a literal PR advertising webhost. In fact the history is so blatant, it's quite clear the company knew about this article and was using it to its own advantages, something else non-compromisable. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company does have coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH and is similar to other corporate pages we allow. -- Dane2007 talk 14:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of not accepting other corporate pages we allow which are vulnerable to advertising of course, we must first think what the consequences and damages are when such blatant advertising is accepted, and I've noted above what the concerns are so this is a case of deleting being the only path of cleanliness for Wikipedia, lest it become a advertising-publishing website, and it's clear the company planned for this considering the past accounts are literally advertising accounts. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was happy to find this page. I was checking out payment methods for a web hosting company and saw Dwolla, which I had never heard of. I do not understand the mindset of people who want to hide information from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.142.106 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If nothing else the references to Dwolla blog really need to be deleted. That is link spam.--Rpclod (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources provided by North America easily demonstrate this topic passing WP:CORPDEPTH. Attacks on the journalists as being paid advertisers with zero evidence being provided is pure original research speculation and a possible violation of WP:BLP which applies to non-mainspace content. --Oakshade (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  As per Oakshade.  As per WP:5P3 fundamental principles, what we write is intended to be used and distributed.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - Despite the comments citing WP:CORPDEPTH, the important ones that are actually policy are WP:SPAM and WP:NOT which explicitly state "removal of anything unacceptable or unsuitable for Wikipedia", and literally that's what this article is, it's been obviously influenced by the company itself, the sources are all PR as is the information, and no one has cared to either acknowledge the concerns or at least sufficiently improve them (although the latter would not be feasible since the other concerns are non-negotable) hence deletion is the only solution for such blatant advertising.
When we start saying No to explicit policy such as WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, we're damned, because as it is, it's clear company employees were canvassed into this AfD as it is. As it is, I concur with the other Delete vote in that, Indian publications have notoriously been listed as advertising-publishers and articles even cite this in either "Information by company website" or "For this information, see company website", therefore suggesting anyone is being attacked when it is in fact the honesty.
For Wikipedia's sake, as it is this has been deleted multiple times, the current article is blatantly overbloated with "products and services" and lastly so is the history where literally no one, including the Keep votes, have cared to meaningfully improve it. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was only deleted once, in 2011, before all the provided sources establishing WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH were published. Even the guideline (not policy) WP:SPAM states "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view." --Oakshade (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And did you ever see an article being despammed after such an argument? What I have noticed it that the spam and advertising stays where it is because the editors stating that fact, are not acting upon it. The Banner talk 09:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Every Keep comment here has simply stated some trivial general not such as WP:BASIC, WP:CORP or WP:GNG, but those still mean nothing when explicit policies WP:SPAM (which states removal of unsuitable materials is in fact acceptable) and WP:NOT (which also states removal of anything unsuitable for Wikipedia), this any claims of "So fix it!" or "This only needs a few fixes" is not applicable when both policies suggests against it. Hell, even with WP:IAR, it also supports removal of anything unsuitable for Wikipedia, so we honestly have choices to support removal, let's not ignore them. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG is just "some trivial general"? WP:BASIC and WP:CORP are meaningless? Wow. WP:GNG, which a vast majority of editors consider paramount, states " if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." As for WP:SPAM, this is becoming a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. WP:SPAM clearly states that if a topic a notable but written in an advertisement tone, the article can be simply be re-written into a neutral point of view.--Oakshade (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here are the non-primary references from the article:
Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here are two relevant comments from the talk page:
== Establishing Notability ==

This article is not edited often, but Dwolla is certainly notable enough to warrant an article.

From the Wikipedia notability guidelines for organizations and companies:

  • An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
  • The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.

There have been many articles in depth about Dwolla. Though significance is not necessarily the same as notability, in the case of Dwolla, it is notable because of its significance. As noted in these sources, its significance is not in its user base, but its alternative to traditional payment systems, a key component of the modern economy. And though it's not central to its significance, Dwolla was very prominent during the Bitcoin increase in 2013, when it was the easiest way to transfer cash from Mt. Gox. Dwolla has trouble gaining use due to the network effect; though this is the case with any social-oriented startup, the size of its user base would be misleading when judging the significance of Dwolla, as implied in these third party sources. The number of these reliable, third party sources is notable, both in depth, and the breadth of articles that mention Dwolla.

Some devoted articles:

  • Forbes: [1]
  • Business insider: [2]
  • Techcrunch [3]
  • Pymnts.com [4]
  • Credit Union Times: [5]
  • New York Times blog: [6]
  • New York Times article centered around Dwolla [7]
  • Mashable [8]

The following are brief mentions, but imply the significance of Dwolla as an alternative:

NittyG (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

== Sources for 2014 and 2015 ==

This is a quick and dirty list of URLs to web sources. Forgive the sloppy urls, but the idea is let's fix this article's bias and bring it up to date with sources. The good news is most are print media sources that have both a date and a headline in the URL (feel free to improve these links, but, better, spend the time reading them an incorporating into the article):

KevinCuddeback (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no valid argument as to this topic which clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and is valid per WP:SPAM is somehow "unsuitable" or subject to WP:NOT.--Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a few examples to indicate the quality of the most recent references that are asserted to be significant coverage:
bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/ . Dwolla is mentioned in only one phrase--the subject of the article "z already has several investments in financial technology ventures including 21, Affirm, Boku, Coinbase, Dwolla and TransferWise."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/upshot Same as the first item, about the same person ;
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/19 - One sentence in a list.
des moins register: local article about local company, indiscriminate coverage
payment week: short press release in a very specialized trade paper
Fortune: they signed up one banking company as a customer. That Fortune should print a story about this indicates a PR job.
It seems clear to me that asserting such references to show significance is promotionalism. One of the necessities for starting a business is good start-up funding. An equal necessity, especially for internet businesses that have only a web presence, is a good PR agency to place stories that will encourage people to explore their site. Both of these are good and appropriate parts of the economy.
But the question here is whether we permit getting an article on Wikipedia to be a third part of the program. If we do, any good PR writer should be able to manage an article like this, and certainly to find the references they or their colleagues have generated. But we will no longer be an encyclopedia, and will be betraying the trust of our readers. If they want PR, Google etc. finds it very effectively, and all of us probably use this daily to find directory and catalog information. We, on the other hand, are the only widely used source for those who want NPOV information about the sort of important subjects they might expect to find information in an encyclopedia .
The principle at stake here is not really CORPDEPTH or INDISCRIMINATE, it's NOT DIRECTORY, and the fundamental pillar that WP IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.
There's a personal issue at stake for all of us. It is perfectly reasonable to make a web directory, and at the beginning there were good manual efforts until Google showed it could do it better. There's no point in a bunch of amateurs trying to beat them at their own game. If I did that sort of work, I'd expect, like the other people in that business, to be paid for it. But there has never before in the world been an encyclopedia in any medium with our scope of coverage and multilingual capacity, and in the English language, there is no effective alternative. Almost uniquely, the amateurs--those working for the love of the project--have shown they can do much better at this than the professionals working for money. It takes real work to maintain our distinctiveness against the forces that would pervert it, and AfD is a key part of it. I have no ill-will for the people who want to use us as a directory and a place for advertising, but they have no place in our mission. Among the worthwhile things to do with our lives, I don't see how it can include running a promotional site for the love of it. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To add to the above analysis, I will note that several of the sources in that large list are obvious PR, not only the SiliconPrairieNews (clearly a PR trade publication), TechCrunch (explicitly states the information itself is from company website), Forbes (not in fact an independent staff article, but instead a hired contributor for the company itself), BizJournals.com (never has and never will be accepted as it's literally another PR trade publication), Boston Globe (trivial coverage by far), VentureBeat (yet another PR trade publication and it yet again shows) and BusinessInsider (another PR trade publication, regardless of, since the fact it literally consists of company-supplied information), both Mashable and Pymnts (I've never heard of the latter, but it too is clearly PR trade) are simply trivial PR coverage and Mashable itself lists information as "company-contributed) and there are then the obvious ones such as the Entrepreneur and HuffPost both of which were listed here as "brief mentions", and then lastly the Bloomberg which is literally a company stocks listing. Therefore, there's literally nothing at all of both actual coverage substance and non-PR advertising.
Something else we've noted before, and no one (especially not from the Keep side) has cared to mention but we ourselves cannot simply confide in a major publication to not simply republish company advertising (especially if paid) so we ourselves are in fact different, as an encyclopedia clearly, to not at least affect ourselves with such blatancy and PR actions. Also, as an important note for closer , the history itself shows the article has in fact not substantially changed at all, and especially considering the listed sources here, those changes aren't going to happen. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail WP:CORPDEPTH? Even those in favor of deletion are acknowledging WP:CORPDEPTH isn't an issue.--Oakshade (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things is that explicit policy was mentioned above repeatedly by different users, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, both of which can and has been used to remove advertising. When we seriously start questioning policies, we can no longer be expected to be a functioning encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 16:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
=== How to contribute ===
Shortcuts

AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD.

Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about the extremely specific analysis above which actually went as far to quote material from the listed quotes, and the fact WP:NOT applies since the said sources are republished advertising, also violating WP:ORGIND? SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erb? [17] is a fine source for the article. [[18]] is too. Plenty of passing references to add to it. Hobit (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, I explicitly showed above all of them were company-influenced, including TechCrunch which has not only become notorious for republishing anything to help the company themselves, but also the fact Forbes is now largely simply "freelance journalist-authored sites", not independent. Fortune itself simply consists of republished company quotes. WP:NOT policy is not negotiable. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment but I simply must disagree strongly. If the standard for judging whether business press is "company-influenced" then no business article, and no companies, will ever pass. To assert that WP:NOT is "non-negotiable" is simply silly. Not only have criteria for notability and even notability itself been negotiated and debated innumerable times within the project, but also every single AfD discussion is negotiation towards consensus about notability. You may feel you "explicitly showed' the lack of reliability, but your evidence and assertions do not appear persuasive. I would urge you not to be overly-attached to removing articles you don't feel meet your personal standards by re-characterizing sources as unreliable just because you don't like that they don't support your position. I could just as easily say Forbes and Fortune are clearly under WP:NEWSORG and widely accepted as WP:RS. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis including the other, DGG, also cared to specify the concerns, and they were genuine concerns showing that, regardless of publication or name, the contents were still PR, even the national ones such as NYT which literally cared to specify what you would find at the company website, thus that's not independent and it's not genuine coverage. WP:NEWSORGE and WP:RS are still not comparable to WP:NOT. There are no "overly-attached personal standards" here, simply that we never accept advertising overall, something that no one else at the Keep side has cared to cite.
"AfD is negotiation towards consensus about notability" Exactly, and the analysis above has shown it's not even notability here, simply advertising. Once again, Forbes and Fortune were analyzed above, found to be advertising for explicitly stated explanations, and that's all there is to say. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is this thing still going on? Easy keep based on notability established via multiple significant mentions in reliable sources, as highlighted in many !votes above. The standard anti-business complaints echo'd in this AFD are beyond moot, but at least they are entertaining to read if one has some time to waste. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwolla&oldid=1137808321"